1920-03-12

VISCOUNT JELLICOE'S REPORT.

Hon. C. C. RALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved:: Thalt 1.000 copies of the report of Admiral of the Fleet Viscount Jellicoe of Seapa on the Naval Mission to Canada be printed, 750 in English and 250 in French, and that Rule 74 of the House ibe suspended with reference to
such printing.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: I do not imagine that there would be any objection to the motion, but one is led to inquire what need there is for a motion of this kind. The Government are constantly bringing down documents and laying them on the Table; why is it necessary to delay procedure in order to have a motion put through the House for a small job of public printing?


Mr. SPEAKER:: There would be delay until the matter was attended to by the Committee on Printing, if such a motion as this were not adopted by the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to provide for the settlement of differences between the Governments of the Dominion of Canada and the province of British Columbia respecting Indian Lands and certain other Indian affairs in the said province.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Explain.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: In the year 1912, a Royal Commission was appointed by the Government of Canada in pursuance of an agreement entered into between the British Columbia Government of that day and the Dominion Government, which agreement called for a reference to that Joint Commission of differences that had arisen in relation to a reversionary right in Indian lands claimed by the province, and in relation as well to supposed surplus lands belonging to different Indian reserves, and other matters. The agreement provided that the report of the commission should be sympathetically received by both Governments and, so far as deemed wise by each, adopted. By reason of the very great caution exercised in the commitments in the agreement it has been found impossible yet to ratify the findings of the Commission. The Dominion Government has been ready to ratify for some time-in fact, ever since the Commission reported. The British Columbia Government desires modifications. Negotiations are necessary. The Bill is to enable us so to negotiate and conclude upon the basis of the Commission's finding. The British Columbia Government has passed similar legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to amend the Indian Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Arthur Meighen: This Bill contains
many important modifications of the Indian Act. Its principal clauses look to a more ready enfranchisement of the Indian; I mean by "enfranchisement" the elevation of the Indian to the status of a citizen. The old Act in its original form contained certain provisions to that end which were very slow of execution. An Act was passed a year ago providing for a class of cases being'more expeditiously dealt with. This Act is general in its terms and looks to the enfranchisement of all who are fit to enfranchise. Other clauses of the Bill make clearer provision for the compulsory education of Indian children. There are other minor clauses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 

IMMIGRATION OF IMPERIAL EXSERVICE MEN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct the attention of the Government and of the House to a subject which in my judgment is of urgent public importance. I shall follow up my remark by putting a question. A despatch signed by "Windermere," published last night in the Montreal Star, refers to a debate that took place in the Imperial House of Commons in the course of which Mr. Briant, member for Lambeth, directed the attention of the House to the fact that two young men, one a discharged soldier and the other a discharged sailor, had proceeded to Canada and had been taken across the continent to British Columbia. He stated that after they had remained in British Columbia three days they had had to proceed to the United States, because they found that British Columbia was full of unemployed Canadian soldiers. In the course of his remarks Mr. Briant said:
This seems to show that the Dominion Government is at fault in taking them right across the Canadian continent. The whole problem should be re-discussed between the British and Canadian authorities so that the emigrant be left with no reasonable ground for complaint.
According to the report Mr. Briant concluded by saying:	.
If the members saw the muddles of the Canadian emigration officials as he had seen them in Canada, they would not be so enthusiastic over these British assisted passages.
Mr. Briant is one of the most prominent members of the British House of Commons, and in view of the fact that this is the season during which the tide of immigration is generally turned to Canada and also of the fact that the reputation of this country is seriously involved, I should like to ask the Government whether they have taken or intend to take some steps to remove this _ impression, whether it be based on actual facts or whether it be incorrect.


Hon. Mr. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I have no knowledge of the facts as set forth in the statement read by the hon. gentleman, and no ' intimation has come to me in any way, shape, or form with reference to the two persons mentioned, a soldier and a sailor. Moreover, there is very close co-operation at the present time between our officials overseas in London and the British authorities in reference to Imperial ex-service men who are coming to Canada. Some weeks
25i
ago there came to Canada a number of ex-gervice men who should really not have come considering the conditions existing in the country during the past winter. But that matter is now well under control, and no one of those men-I am speaking of those who receive assisted passages from the British Government-is permitted to come without the approval of our officials in London. So far as I know, the whole problem is now well under control, and I doubt very much if any incidents such as are referred to in that statement are likely to occur in Canada


Henri Sévérin Béland: What about the "muddle?"


James Alexander Calder: The gentleman who made that statement-


Mr. JACOBS:: Is not a Government supporter.


James Alexander Calder: - is privileged to make any statements he pleases as to what his view of the position is.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE AMENDMENT ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. N. W. Rowell (President of the Council), the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution; Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of section sixty-six of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Adt, as proposed to be enacted in the Bill entituled an Act to amend the Royal Canadian ^Mounted Police Act and to transfer to the Commissioner of Dominion Police the powers heretofore vested in the Commissioner of Dominion Police, (Bill 2), now before the House,, be amended to provide that the pension of a constable shall not exceed two-thirds of his annual pay and allowances at his retirement.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend explain?


Mr. ROWELL:: The resolution relates to the Bill now before the House which will come up for second reading to-day. The object is to correct a clerical error which occurred in the pension provisions of the Act passed last session. The basis of pensions for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a certain percentage of their " pay and allowances." These words appear throughout the Act with the exception of a single subsection in which apparently, through some inadvertence, the words " and allowances " were omitted. This is simply to correct that subsection and bring it into harmony with the other provisions of the Act.

Mr. H. H, STEVENS (Vancouver): I did not hear a single word the minister said, and I do not know whether he hears me, and in a reciprocal mood, I do not care very much whether he does or not, because no effort seems to be made to speak so that we can all hear. I could hear, Mr, Deputy Speaker, every word that you uttered, when reading the resolution and consequently I must say that the fault is not ours. I am going to add this further observation that I think the architects, while they deserve a great deal of credit for the beauty of this Chamber, lost sight absolutely and entirely of the use to which the Chamber was to be put.
I do not know whether my remarks are relevant to what the minister said or not, as I could not hear his remarks; but I wish *to bring .the attention of the Government to a matter that has already been brought to the attention of the House in connection with the pensions of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. I did not know that this matter was coming up to-day or I should have been prepared to discuss it more in detail, but briefly my point is this: There are in Canada a large number of pensioners of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, who, I understand, gave twenty or more years' service, and who, after having given this period of service, weie retired and granted a pension. We all know that a man who has given twenty years, the prime of his life necessarily, to the service of his country in this particular branch or in any other branch, is ceitainly not fitted, at the conclusion of that period or on his discharge from the Force, to earn his living upon the ordinary labour market. That, I think, goes without question and without any doubt. The pensions of the older members of the force are based on the rate of pay that they received ten, twenty or thirty years ago as the case may be. You will at once observe, Sir, that the older a man is, and the less capable ho is of sustaining himself, the smaller is his pension, because of the remote period at which it was granted to him and the small salary of that date, on which the pension was based. Consequently, there are a large number of veterans of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police who to-day are receiving very small pensions. This matter has been brought to the attention of the Government, and it may be that the minister said something about it when he was speaking, but that I do not know. It may be that the Government has reached some conclusion in this matter ; hut I wish to urge upon the 
attention of the Government and, in particular, of the minister, the fairness of the request of the veterans of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. There are in the House a number of members who, I know, are interested in this subject, and who, I think, desiie to give it their support. I should like to ask the minister if the request made by the veterans of this force that provision should be made for granting a bonus to supplement existing pensions has been considered and will be acceded to by the Government.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I may say I do not think the House, on most occasions at least, has any reason to complain that it is unable to hear me. I think my voice is usually heard in the Chamber, and regret if members were not able to hear what I have said.
I explained that the object of this amendment was simply to correct a clerical error in one subsection of the Act passed last session, so as to make the subsection read that pensions to members of the Mounted Police shall be based upon their pay and allowances. That is clearly provided in the Act, but in one particular subsection, the last subsection relating to pensions, the words " and allowances " were left out. Although that omission was purely a clerical error, the words cannot be inserted without an amendment, and that amendment, as it relates to a charge on the public funds of this country, cannot be made without this resolution having been previously adopted by the House. That is the sole tobject of this resolution which, when it is approved by the committee, will come up for consideration when the Bill is before the committee of the whole House.
Referring to the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens), there is no doubt, having regard to the present cost of living, that pensions granted some years ago upon the scale of pay then existing iare not nearly so adequate to-day as they were when granted, and many pensioners are suffering hardships by reason of the change in conditions, and I sympathize with them in the position in which they find themselves. My hon. friend will realize, however, that it is not a simple matter to deal with. There are thousands of persons who [DOT] have retired from various branches of the public service and who are receiving pensions granted in years gone by. Take, for instance, all the militia and Civil Service pensions that have been granted prior to the present time. These persons have made representations that their pensions should

be increased, but up to date, having regard to the other charges upon the revenues of the country, 'the Government has not seen its way clear as a matter of general public policy to increase the pensions that have hitherto been granted in the different branches of the public service. The same thing is true of judges, and in fact of all those who under the various laws enacted by this Parliament are in receipt of pensions granted under the conditions which prevailed prior to the war. It is true that this matter [DOT]has been brought to my attention, and I *brought it to the attention of my colleagues in the Government, but in view of the general situation we felt we could not deal with the pensioners of the Mounted Police in any different manner from that in which we dealt with all other public servants who had retired from the public service and are in receipt of pensions. The Government has not been able to see its way clear to make provision, for increased pensions for all who have hitherto retired.


Mr. H. H. STEVENS:: The minister must realize that there is a very great difference between the pensions that are being drawn by different members of the public service who have retired. The minister even mentioned judges. Justices of the Supreme Court upon retirement receive a pension of something like $4,500 a year. Surely the minister recognizes that there is a difference between the graded pensions of the Civil Service and the judiciary, and a pension of. $30 a month granted to a man who has spent the best of his life in the public service on a salary on which it was impossible to save, and who now in his old age is practically dependent on this pittance from the Government. I would suggest, and I wish to press this matter strongly, that a solution could be found by increasing the pensions to the minimum on which a man ' could live decently. I do not know what that minimum would be, but certainly the pensioners of the Mounted Police and all other pensioners in the same position should have their pensions increased. I know a light-keeper who has served this country for thirty years in an isolated lighthouse, who is to-day receiving a pension of only $30 a month. That is not justice. Surely this Parliament is not going to deliberate on the finances of this country and disregard such a flagrant case of injustice as that. It will not do to dismiss this question by saying that the same conditions apply to the whole Civil Service of Canada, and that to increase the pensions would involve a sum too large to be faced. We are not asking
the Government to raise pensions that are fairly adequate to-day, but I would urge the Government as strongly as I can to bring pensions that are obviously grossly inadequate up to a minimum that would give a man a reasonable chance to live decently. The Government are granting pensions to-day to the Mounted Police based on their present pay, of from $2 to $3 per day, whereas in days gone by the rate was based on the pay of 75 cents or 90 cents a day, so there is no sense or justice in the Government refusing to raise pensions granted in years past that are obviously inadequate to-day. I know many old pensioners who have no means of support except their pension and such doles as are handed out to them by charitable friends. That is' not a desirable condition; it is not fair or just. While I do not desire to embarrass the Government with perplexing problems, I feel it my duty to urge as strongly as I can that the Government should bring pensions up to a standard oi decent living in the ease of those receiving only a small amount.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (Peterborough):: I have no hesitation in embarrassing the Government in connection with this matter. Until this Government or any other understands that the basis of remuneration for fair work is human life and not simple arithmetic, there will be no contentment or justice or common decency in the country. The trail of the serpent is over it all. It is profiteering in another way-inversely, if you like, but nevertheless it is so. Until we appreciate the elementary fact that good honest toil is worthy of good honest and decent recompense, and that one man requires just as much of the necessaries of life as another, no matter whether he is at the head or the foot of an organization, we have not appreciated the very elements of civilization, we lack brains. It is almost incredible that after 2,000 years of Christianity and preaching we have reached such a miserable stage that we have no regard for a man's life and livelihood, but hand out to him just the dole that happens to be opposite his name. On the other hand, I have noticed that people with big salaries and big positions to keep up are always sustained in their position by Governments and the people generally. That sort of thing simply breeds discontent in the country. It is one of the very great things in British public life that the British understand these facts, and are anxious to see even the humblest toiler get at least fair play and reasonable comfort. In this coun-

try we are too much inclined to pass over all that sort of thing with a sweep of the hand, and I say we had better embarrass the Government, and embarrass it rapidly and deeply until it reaches the understanding that life is the basis of reward and not simple arithmetic.


Mr. R. J. MANION:: I wish to support
what my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) has said, because the sooner this or any other Government recognizes the principle that a man who has given the greater part of his life in the service of his country is entitled to a pension equal to a living wage, the sooner they will have the people of this country solidly behind them. Last year the special committee appointed to deal with soldiers' civil re-establishment, under the chairmanship of my hon. friend (Mr. Calder), brought in a recommendation in favour of higher pensions for certain classes of dependents of soldiers who were not getting an adequate pension, but no action has been taken by the Government in that regard. I think it is a very live question. All these helpless people, whether they be dependents of soldiers killed at the Front, or men who have retired from the Mounted Police or of any other branch of the Civil Service, should be looked after and given an adequate living wage by this Government.


Mr. W. D. COWAN:: In Regina, where I live, and which has been the headquarters of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police ever since that body was established, we have probably a larger percentage of Mounted Police pensioners than has any other city in Canada, and I find that some of their families are suffering real hardship. Most of these men are so old that it is utterly impossible for them to do any work to speak of. We all know that it is a matter of the greatest difficulty for a man between the ages of fifty and seventy to get any sort of remunerative employment at any time, and dt is particularly difficult for these men to obtain work, because their employment in the service has been of such a nature as to render them unadapted to other occupation. Those men to-day in Regina have pensions ranging from thirty to fifty dollars a month on which it is absolutely impossible for them to exist in any state of decency. Hitherto they have not complained very much, hut they feel a grievance now that pensions have been increased for men henceforth entering the force. They were quite prepared to struggle along as best they could, but now they feel that they are being unjustly discriminated against; and for that reason they are to-

day somewhat-indeed I might say, quite -antagonistic. A goodly number of them have interviewed me on the subject and I had intended to bring the matter personally to the attention of the President of the Privy Council. So far, however, I have not had an opportunity to do so. I would emphasize as strongly as possible the view of the hon. member for Vancouver, and urge that adequate attention be given to this class of pensioners. Personally I think it is beneath the dignity of this Dominion to expect married men who have spent twenty years or more in the service of the country to live on from thirty to fifty dollars a month, when because of the very character of their services every other form of occupation is now denied them.


Mr. C. W. PECK:: I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Stevens) on this subject, although I do not intend to enter into any lengthy discussion of it. I have contended repeatedly in this House that the pensions of our soldiers are inadequate, and I intend to continue to do so until something is done. I have some faith in this Government that it- is favourably disposed-and I think that if we can fully impress upon them the necessity for increased pensions they will appreciate that necessity and do something. I endorse what has been said in favour of the pensioners of the Northwest Mounted Police in both the regular and the overseas forces, and I trust that the Government will this year take the question into earnest consideration and deal with it effectively. At present I am ashamed of the pensions that are paid, notwithstanding the fact that they are larger than those paid by any other nation. I think, indeed, that it is to the glory of Canada and its Parliament that we have put through pension measures which are the most liberal in the world. But for men of this class everything possible should be done. History has proved that the soldier has always been scandalously treated in the matter of pension, and Kipling and other writers have shown that people have always been ready to applaud the soldier and glorify him when he stepped to the front rank in the hour of danger, but that when it came to a question of pension they were always rather stingy. I think therefore that everything should be done so that none of the dependents of the men who have served the country either at home or overseas will suffer want, but will have proper provision that will afford them a decent livelihood, and care for and educate their orphans.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the question is somewhat broader than it appears on first view. Hon. gentlemen have spoken of inadequate pensions granted to the retired members of the Mounted Police, but there are also other classes of pensioners in Canada. For instance, there are plenty of judges still living who were appointed years ago under the old system of pensions, and the same remark applies to civil servants generally. 'Their pensions were all fixed in former years when salaries were perha/ps more adequate compared with the cost of necessaries than they are today, and the recipients are no doubt suffering considerable hardship at the present time. I appreciate the remarks that have been made in regard to the Mounted Police, but the question of pensions is a very large .one and naturally moves one's sympathies. It is not a question concerning the Mounted Police alone, but one that affects the whole pension list of Canada.


Hon. T. W. CROTHERS:: I have no objection to the Bill proposed by the President of the Privy Council. I am one of those who for many years have thought that the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, having regard to the character of their work, have never been adequately paid-double the ;wage they got would not have adequately paid them. Their salaries have been shamefully inadequate, and if the Bill suggested by the President of the Council will secure these men any more recompense, I wish it every success. Speaking generally, however, in regard to pensions, apart from those which are given for military service, I want to disassociate myself from several statements that have been made.
One or two hon. gentlemen have referred to men who have "given their lives in the service of the country." Well, there may be some,'but I cannot put my finger at the present moment on one who has "given" his life. Speaking generally, they have not given their lives in the service of the country, although I think there are some exceptions. Those in the service of the country-are receiving larger pay than men doing equally hard work in other lines of employment. Talk about giving their lives! Why, as soon as there is a vacancy there is a scramble of hundreds to get it because they know they are going to be paid more than they could earn anywhere else. I want to repeat, Mr. Chairman, that there are exceptions. I think we have some men-comparatively few-in the public service who are not sufficiently paid, and I would be among the first to increase the salaries of
such men. But on the whole, apart from military service, I am opposed to the principle of pensions or superannuation. Two young men come to Ottawa, let us say-one goes into the Civil Service at a larger salary than he would get anywhere else in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, and when he has served twenty or twenty-five years he expects to be superannuated and put as a charge upon the country for the rest of his life. The other young man, of equal ability and education, goes into a private concern, a bank or some mercantile establishment, and after his service of twenty or twenty-five years, with a smaller pay than his more fortunate friend in the public service, notwithstanding that he himself has had to provide against old age and the inevitable rainy day, if he does not want to be thrown upon an institution of charity, he is nevertheless obliged to contribute to the support of the man who has gone into the Civil Service and draws a pension. This is absolutely unfair, I contend.
We have no trouble whatever in filling all the positions in the Civil Service, with the exception once in a while of a position of technical character. Let me reiterate, Mr. Chairman, lest there should be any misunderstanding, that these remarks do not apply to those men who served the country in the hour of peril. Nothing is too good for those who risked life and limb and passed trying days for the preservation of freedom. I will do everything I possibly can to assist such men. Generally speaking, however, I disassociate myself from [DOT] .any contention that the pension or superannuation list should be enlarged.


Mr. BEREAU:: What is the object of restricting the pension to two-thirds of the annual pay and allowances at retirement?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The pension is two-thirds based on the years of service. A man does not become entitled to pension as a matter of right until he has served a certain number of years. If he has served twenty years he becomes entitled to a pension as of right on the basis set out in the Act. If he has served for ten years and is retired by reason of physical disability, there is power to grant a pension, but that is the basis upon which the pension is granted-two-thirds of the pay or salary that he is receiving.


Jacques Bureau: I do not understand why you make it two-thirds. There are cases where men are entitled to more than that. When they retire they are not all absolutely in the same position. Some men may retire after twenty years and be abso-

lutely unfit for anything else and two-thirds of their salaries would be insufficient to keep them. In some eases it might work an injustice if you had a hard and fast rule that two-thirds will be the maximum to which they shall be entitled. I do not think you would be doing justice to these men as a class.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has always been the law, both in connection with the Mounted Police and the Permanent Force that where a pension is granted based on the period of service, the pension should be based on a fixed percentage of the salary paid. It is not a disability pension. If this were a disability pension, it would be based on the character of the disability. This is a pension for length of service, and in that case the pensions have always been on a uniform basis, being a certain percentage of the salary received proportionate to the length of service. In this respect there is no change in the law.
iMr. FIELDING:	I would not like
the observations of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) against the whole principle of superannuation to pass without some word of dissent -I will not say protest. I am afraid, however, that the view which my hon. friend has taken is the popular one. A great many people will ask that question, as the hon. gentleman did: Why should two young men coming to Ottawa fare so differently? One of them goes into the public service and ultimately gets a pension, while the other goes into private service and gets nothing. In spite of that, if the Government have any intention of introducing a measure to restore the principle of superannuation I would like to help them, and I do not want the observations of my hon. friend, which are against that view, to pass unchallenged. It is not a question of what is just to the individual; it is a question of what is just to the public service. You cannot expect to get good men to remain in your service either in public or private life unless you see that they have adequate salaries, and unless you have some reasonable provision by which you can give them ' something for the rainy day. Even with the larger private employers to whom my hon. friend has referred, that principle applies. He spoke of the banks. All the banks and other large financial institutions have found it necessary to adopt pension systems, not for the sake of the individual, but in order that they may secure efficient service. I have a case that came to my knowledge-I will not mention the name-

of a well known official in connection with one of our Government departments, and in this I speak of my own experience. As minister it came to my knowledge that he had been offered a very handsome salary to leave the department. He did not leave. He did not say anything about it; he was a modest, unassuming man. When I met him I said I was very much pleased that he had decided to remain in the service. He said: " I am remaining in the service because, among other reasons, I have been contributing some years to the superannuation fund, and with the supplement which the Government is making to that, I will one day be able to retire." If we had not had that superannuation arrangement, that man, one of the most valuable officials in the service of the Government, would have gone to New York, where he would have received a much larger salary than he was getting in the public service. From my own experience and from my observation of my successor's work, I know that in the Finance Department we have been losing valuable men because we do not seem to be able to pay them adequate salaries in comparison with what they are able to receive ' outside. I was, I am free to confess, a minister in the Government that changed the superannuation system. We had for many years a superannuation system. It was claimed that it had been abused. How far that was correct I do not need, to assert, but at all events that was the impression throughout the country. In consequence of that impression, an impression that men had been pushed out of the service to makd way for friends of the Administration, there was a strong feeling against the superannuation system, and when the Liberal Government came into power in 1806-7, in view of that prevailing sentiment, we made a change in the Superannuation Act. We decided that superannuation should remain with respect to the old officials, but that thereafter there should be none. As respects all the officials, with the exception of those of the Militia Department and Mounted Police who seemed to have fared better, the members of the Civil Service of Canada, since 1896-7, have had no place on the superannuation list. There was a retirement fund established as a sort of substitute. It was entirely insufficient. It is only a system of compulsory saving, and all the Government pay is a slightly higher rate than the common rate of interest. But this retirement fund is insufficient to enable a man to retire with a reasonable degree of comfort. There are many men in the depart-

ments, who may have done excellent work, but who are kept there when they are no longer efficient, simply because there is no arrangement for their retirement. It is not so much in the interest of the individual as in the interest of an efficient public service that I am free to say that I think the then Government made a mistake in that respect, and I am willing to help the present Government to correct the mistake. The illustration which I have given confirms that view, and there have been many such cases. If you want to keep good men in the public service you must hold out some inducement to them. The chances of men saving up for the rainy day, whether in the Government service or private service, are not very good. All our large financial institutions are recognizing that. My hon. friend from Elgin referred to the banks. If a young man goes into a bank to-day he comes under a superannuation system; if he goes into the service of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or into that of any of the larger corporations, he comes under the operation of a superannuation system. I do not want to enlarge upon it. I simply say that not only in regard to the individual himself but in regard to the efficiency of the service, it is a sound policy to have a superannuation system, to which the official should make some contribution himself. I am sorry to differ from my hon. friend from Elgin. I know he has the popular end of it, and I rather suspect that some of my good friends who sit on what are called the cross benches may sympathize with the hon. gentleman. But, in the interest of efficient public service, every civilized nation has found today that it is necessary to have a superannuation system, and I hope we will have it-in Canada.
Mr. CROTHElRS : My hon. friend has insinuated that the stand I have taken is a popular one and that probably I likely had some personal interest-


William Stevens Fielding: I will state at once to my hon. friend that I did not say anything of the kind and I did not mean to convey any such impression.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The implication was made, and repeated, that I had taken the popular side on this matter. I may inform my hon. friend that I have never sought to take the popular side on any question. The hon. gentleman has referred to one case where a gentleman in the Civil Service was offered a larger salary and went to other employment. I covered instances of
that kind when I said that there were some members of the Civil Service who were not sufficiently paid and whose remuneration ought to be increased. Let me tell my hon. friend that one swallow does not make a summer.
I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that when the Government, of which he was a prominent member, abolished superannuation, in 1897, T think it was, they made a mistake. I do not think they made a mistake by abolishing the system but they should have substituted something for it.
One plea in favour of superannuation is that there are gentlemen in the Civil Service who, perhaps because of an extravagant family, live beyond their means, spend every year all they earn, and when they have reached the age of sixty-five or seventy and ought to be retired in the public interest, it is said "they have been in the public service for twenty-five or thirty years, they have no means, we cannot put them out and therefore they must be retained, after they have survived their efficiency." I think that position ought to be met but, in my judgment, it should not be met out of the public exchequer. The man who is in the public service ought to prqvide for old age in the same way as does the individual who is in private employment. It is said that these men do not do it and that they will not do it. Well the Government can compel them to do it. What I suggest is that every man who enters the Civil Service should be taxed on his salary-not to afford a retiring allowance such as my hon. friend refers to, because I quite agree with him that is not adequate at all-but he should be insured by the Government on premiums paid by himself just in the same manner as mei) in private employment have to provide for their children or for old age or for a rainy day. I ask would not such a plan as that meet the case? Let the civil servant con-) tribute enough each year from his salary to enable the Government when he reaches the age of sixty-five to retire him on an allowance adequate to his station in life and protect him during the remainder of his life. In such a case as that the civil servant would be independent and he would have paid for this insurance himself out of his own salary. We seem to lose sight of the fact that where a man is superannuated - always excepting the men who have fought for their country-he is in a humiliating position, not to use even stronger language; every time a man holds out his

hand for something he has not got, u little bit of his manhood oozes out of the end of his fingers. As 1 see it the members of the Civil Service should be compelled, in the way I have suggested, to make provision for old age. Then they will be entirely independent of anybody. No good reason has been assigned by my hon. friend in his remarks why the civil servant should be relieved from what is an imperative duty in the case of the man in private employment of making provision for himself and family. There is no justice that I can see in granting him relief from such responsibility.


William Stevens Fielding: The system we now have is a system of contribution to the superannuation fund.


Walter Davy Cowan: It seems to me there is absolutely no comparison between the cases submitted by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and many of the cases now cited. I agree'with the last speaker that the man who is in receipt of a sufficiently large salary ought to save enough to provide for old age. But what are you to do with men who serve in the mounted police for years on a stipend of seventy-five cents or a dollar a day? I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) how a man could save enough from a per diem wage of that amount to keep himself and family when old age comes? What we want is provision to meet the case of those men who have left the force	after a	service of many
years, and are now trying to live in various parts of Canada on 330 or $50 a month

men who have reached the age of fifty, sixty, or seventy years. It is a past condition with an existing obligation, that we have to deal with. These men have served their country for years on a daily pay of fifty, sixty, or seventy-five cents or a dollar and they found it absolutely impossible to put any money by. Some of these men married when they were in the service-perhaps they should not have done so but they did-and have wives and children dependent upon them. I ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crothers) to inform me how they could save enough out of their pay to make provision for their old age?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I repeat my previous statement that I think the members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police have never been adequately paid,-I do not think they receive one half of what they should receive and perhaps their super-
]Mr. Crothers. [
annuation allowance is not sufficient. I have no objection to making suitable provision for the members of the force.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boivin):: Before any further discussion takes place on this resolution I must remind hon. members that speeches in committee must be strictly relevant to the question, clause or resolution under discussion. The present resolution deals with pensions for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, and any discussion of superannuation or retiring allowances for Civil Servants is entirely out of order.


Mr. STACEY:: I labour under the disadvantage referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Stevens) inasmuch as I scarcely know whether or not any remarks I may make will be strictly apropos of the real subject of discussion, as I have not heard what has been said, but before stating my views I wish to throw out a suggestion which possibly is worthy the consideration of the Government,, and incidentally of the leader of the Opposition. Would it not be possible for the members of the Cabinet and the leaders on the Opposition side to occupy as seats of honour t(ie centre benches in this Chamber.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear..


Frank Bainard Stacey: There is no special virtue I presume attaching to the seats which they occupy at the upper end of this Chamber, consequently the centre would be the natural and the logical place for the leaders on each side to sit. If they are agreeable to that change being made I am sure it will meet with the hearty approval of practically all the other members of the House.
As to the question of further recognition of the services rendered by the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, the position taken by the minister that they must be put upon the same basis as other employees of the Government may be technically and perhaps legally and otherwise correct. But' I wish to point out that the members of the Northwest Mounted Police during the last half century have stood between civilization and chaos in the country west of the great lakes, and they are deserving of special consideration, not as a matter of charity, but as a matter of right, honour and common justice. Those who know the work of these men in the Northwest will answer in the affirmative every question as to their having served the country faith-Eully and well. I grant that in some cases the men were lead to join the service

through motives of adventure or possibly through a desire to lead a life in the open. These motives may have served them for a time but now they have to face the sterner realities of life; with the cost of living as it is to-day the glamour of the past entirely fades away and they are face to face with serious responsibilities and obligations. Of all the classes of the people who have served this country, at any rate west of the great lakes, the Northwest Mounted Police deserve at our hands special consideration and anything in the line of pension or bonus which it is within our power to give them. I trust, therefore, that the House will grant them the prayer of their petition so far as it is reasonable and right.
Mr. STEVENlS: I again suggest that a minimum should be fixed in regard to these pensions applicable to the old veterans whose pensions are now based upon the absurdly low sum of 50 or 75 cents a day. I am somewhat disappointed that the minister has not vouchsafed any intimation that he will give the matter further consideration. I may be trespassing upon my rights as a private member in urging this point1 so strongly, but at the risk of incurring the minister's displeasure I wish to press the matter and to advise him that I have a little bit of the stick-to-itiveness of the Cornishman, for I am one by birth. If he does not vouchsafe me an answer today, I shall bring the matter up at the first opportunity when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimates are before the House. I do not wish to be disrespectful, but the matter merits the attention of the Committee and some further statement by the minister.


Mr. A. W. BUCHANAN:: I wish to say a word on behalf of the members of this force who in the by-gone days went out into the western country, endured great hardships and practically saved the western plains for Canada. These men are entitled to generous treatment. Many of them are in need of increased pensions; I know that from personal experience. I do not -want to try to force upon the Government or upon the country any unnecessary expense, but I do say that as long as these men give efficient service to the country Parliament should look after them in a decent and respectable way. I have particular reference to the pioneers in the force who went out there at a time when it was difficult to get men to serve the country. The services rendered by these men should be recognized.


Mr. J. A. MAHARG:: Except in the case of officers high up in the force and who would be permanently stationed at any one place, only single men are enlisted in this force. The men are handicapped, therefore, because of its being practically impossible for them to settle down, provide a home for themselves, and lay up a little competence for the future. In that respect they are in an entirely different position from any other employees in the public service. The minister would be well advised not to follow strictly the wording of the resolution. I am not aware of what their pay is now, but in the early years these men were paid 50 cents a day and you can easily have an idea of about how much they could lay by as a competence for old age at that rate of pay. The resolution provides that pensions shall not exceed two-thirds of the amount of the annual pay and allowances. I do not think that is fair; as my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) says, a minimum amount of pension payable to these men should be established.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell, the resolution was referred to the Committee of the whole House to be considered in connection with Bill No. 2.
On motion of Hon. N. W. Rowell (President of the Privy Council), Bill No. 2, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and to transfer to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the powers heretofore vested in the Commissioner of Dominion Police, was read the second time.


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee I should like to say a word on the second reading of the Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion for the second reading of the Bill has been declared carried. We can cancel the Order if the hon. member so desires, but perhaps it would be better under the circumstances that he make his remarks in Committee.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If I shall not be out of order in doing so,-because my remarks will be of a general character-I accept that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
The House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On Section 1-Powers of Commissioner of Dominion Police transferred to Com-

missioner of Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The matter which I
wish to bring before the committee deals rather with the general organization of this force than with the item now under discussion, and I crave the indulgence both of the Chairman and of my fellow members if I do not hold as strictly as I should to the letter of the clause under consideration. During the recess, since last session, two disturbing matters in connection with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, have come to the public attention, and I am taking this opportunity of bringing them before the minister in order that he may either free our minds by telling us that we are misinformed, or state that such things will not occur again. It was reported in certain parts of the press of Canada that the Mounted Police, who had been the upholders of British traditions throughout the Northwest for the last generation, had made a raid upon a library in Alberta, removing therefrom books which dealt with socialism. I do not know whether the New Testament was amongst the books removed from that library, because we all know that the early Christians had all things in common and were in that sense the first socialists. But we understand that books such as Plato's Republic were removed from the shelves of that library. If this be true, this constitutes a very sad reflection upon the mentality of the Canadian people and the wisdom of those in charge of the Mounted Police. I hope the minister will be able to assure me that my information is incorrect; but if he cannot do so, I hope he will assure the committee that such practices will not be Countenanced in the future, and that those guilty of them will be brought to a speedy reckoning.
The next matter which I heard about came from somewhat further to, the East. It happens that in the city of Toronto there is an organization called the Daughters of Canada, which has for its objects the creation of a national spirit and the study and investigation into Canadian matters. With the objects of this association no patriotic citizen can find the slightest fault. The information that comes to me in connection with this is that on a certain day, I do not know what day, an official functionary of, I understand, the Dominion Police-I do not know whether he was a mounted man or not-came to one of the ladies interested in this association and said:	"What is this
' Daughters of Canada'; we have heard unpleasant, disturbing comments upon this or-

ganization; we have read in the press comments about this organization, and we want to know what it is." This sort of thing may be quite in place in Russia, but it has no place in Ontario, nor in any other part of Canada. I bring these matters before the committee; I cannot think that the minister has any sympathy with such goings on, and I hope either he will be able to tell us that our information is incorrect; or, if it be correct, that he will put a stop to all such proceedings, for of all the liberties which we need to preserve on the. North American continent are liberty of opinion, liberty of free discussion and liberty of free investigation. Without those very bases of liberty, no true national liberty is possible.


Georges Henri Boivin: Having allowed the
remarks just made by the hon. member for Brome, I am sure the committee will give its unanimous consent that the minister make the required reply, but I must afterwards insist that the committee hold itself strictly to the clauses under consideration. I may point out to the hon. member for Brome that his remarks would not have been in order even upon the second reading of this Bill; that the proper time for the remarks would have been upon a motion to go into Supply or when the Estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were under consideration in committee.


Newton Wesley Rowell: With the general principle which my hon. friend (Mr. McMaster) has laid down, I have no quarrel whatever; I believe in freedom of thought, opinion and speech just as firmly as he does. I think I shall have no difficulty in relieving my hon. friend's mind in reference to the matters which he has just mentioned. I first learned of them, or, that there was any talk about them, by reports in the press, and I regret to say that statements do appear in the press that require investigation before one accepts them as absolute facts. In reference to the so-called raid on a public library, I have not heard of one in Alberta; I did see a report in the press that a raid had occurred on a public library in Saskatchewan. I dp not know whether that is the one to which my hon. friend refers or not, but it is the only one that has come to my attention. It came to my attention through the press and I asked for a report upon it, and I am very glad to give the committee the facts in connection with the so-called raid. Hon. members will recall that, under the censorship orders which were in force during the period of the war, but which have since been repealed, certain

books and pamphlets weTe put on the prohibited list, because they were considered to be of a treasonable, or seditious character, or were of such a character as would tend to militate against Canada's war effort. There was an American publishing house which published large numbers of those books, and as I recall the matter, the Department of the Censor, after prohibiting a number of those particular publications found that this publishing house was sending in books of a different character, books to which there had been no objection, but was accompanying those books by those seditious pamphlets that were on the prohibited list. The Department of the Censor reached the conclusion that the only way to deal effectively with this house-it was Kerr and Company, of Chicago,-was to prohibit any books published by this house from coming into Canada. This house, it so happens, did publish Plato's Republic; it did publish books to which there was no possible objection; but it was part of the duty of the Mounted Police, the Department of the Censor having as a matter of public precaution prohibited all the publications of this house from coming into Canada, to assist the Department of the Censor and the Department of Justice in carrying out those orders. It was brought to the attention of the Mounted Police that there were books published by this house in the library in Regina, and they were asked to investigate the matter. They did so; they spoke to the librarian about the matter, and the statement that there was a raid upon the library is absolutely incorrect. There was no raid upon the library; they interviewed the librarian; they were given some of the books; and the police transmitted such as were considered possibly objectionable to the office of the Chief Censor at Ottawa in order that they might be passed upon.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What did the police
think were possibly objectionable?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I did not see the books, and I do not know what it was thought was possibly objectionable. The matter came to my attention only after the event, and these are the facts.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Not the New Testament?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not the New Testament.
So that my hon. friend will see that the whole story in the press, inspired no doubt by those who wanted to criticise the action of the Government in connection with the censorship regulations, was without any real foundation and the reflection on the administration of the police was wholly unwarranted. The police were simply carrying *out an order promulgated by the Government for the protection of public interest during the war period, and were investigating the character of these books.
Now let me deal with another matter my hon. friend has mentioned. I first heard of it this week. I find that here also my hon. friend's information is at fault. What happened was this. A request was made to the Superintendent in charge of the police here in Ottawa for the addresses of the officers of the Daughters of Canada; an innocent request, but, frankly, one that I do not see any particular reason why the police should have carried out. The police went to the headquarters where this association met, at the Y.M.C.A., and ascertained the addresses of the officers in order that they' might transmit them to Ottawa. They did ascertain and transmit those addresses, and so far as the police is concerned, that is all that was done. I regret to say, however, that an officer of the Y.M.C.A., not knowing that the police had gone there simply for the purpose of ascertaining the addresses, reached the conclusion that possibly there was some objection to this organization, and, therefore, when they made application to hold further meetings he offered some objection to it. The moment the matter was drawn to the attention of the police they said: "There is absolutely no objection. There is no reason why this society should be investigated; we are not investigating it; there is no complaint against it." I regret that by reason of the inquiries, made by the police for a perfectly innocent purpose, any inconvenience was caused to the ladies connected with this society. My hon. friend and the House may rest assured that the Mounted Police are preserving the best traditions of the force, and will continue to do so in the days that lie before us.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. .
On section 2-Constable after ten years may be pensioned if infirm, after twenty years entitled to pension.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I now move to amend
subclause (c) of subclause (2) by inserting after the words "annual pay" on line 20 the words "and allowances."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister not also consider including a provision providing a minimum pension applicable to those who have retired on pension in the past, as well as to those retiring in the future?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I appreciate what the
hon. member has said, and what other hon. members have said in support of his suggestion, and I am quite prepared to bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues and ask that it be further considered. Certain facts have been brought out this afternoon indicating conditions of greater hardship than had hitherto been presented to me in connection with this matter. It is only right, however, to say that when I brought this matter to the attention of my colleagues before, the view was that we could not deal with the Mounted Police apart from the larger problem which has been discussed. I shall be glad to give the matter further consideration, but I do not wish to hold up the Bill, for if we reach the conclusion that something further should be done on the lines suggested by my hon. friend, I think it should be dealt with in a separate Bill. I am afraid it would have to be part of a larger matter than simply the Mounted Police. ^


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I should like to make an announcement in connection with the work of the police which I am sure will gratify the House and the country.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Before the minister proceeds with that, can he tell the committee how many men there are at present who will be entitled to receive pensions under this clause?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot give my hon.
friend that information with respect to the men who are now receiving pensions under the law as it existed prior to the Act of last session, because I have not got it here. Those are the men to whom reference has been made by hon. members of the House who have advocated a change in the law to increase their pensions. Since the legislation passed last session increasing pensions, I do not suppose that up to date half a dozen have retired. When they will retire, of course, I cannot say. A man is not entitled to retire of his own volition until after ,twenty years' service. There are quite a number in the Mounted Police who have served twenty years.
As a matter of fact the majority of the men desire to continue. There are a limited number of men in the service who have served for thirty years, but I cannot give my hon. friend the number of those who have served for any definite period. I regret I have not that information.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On the Title:
Newton Wesley Rowell: The matter which I desire to mention to the committee arises out of the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Canada. While His Royal Highness was in Western Canada, the Mounted Police provided him with an escort in the various cities which he visited; and, like other distinguished visitors, he evinced a very great interest in and appreciation of the work of the Mounted Police. I am glad to say that I have received a cable from Sir 'George Perley, Canadian High Commissioner, to the following effect:
With His Majesty's approval. Prince of Wales has graciously consented accept position Honourary Commandant Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and His Royal Highness asks me tell you how pleased he is to be associated with force in this way.
Needless to say the Mounted Police greatly appreciate this conspicuous evidence of His Royal Highness' favour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The people of the Dominion, as well as the Force, will, I am sure, appreciate the honour which has been thus conferred upon that body by His Royal Highness. Most of the hon. members on the other side have spoken of the force as the " Royal Northwest Mounted Police." That title has much in the way of historic significance and naturally brings to mind past associations and traditions to which considerable importance is attached, particularly by those who reside in the West. There is a considerable body of opinion id the country which favours the retention of the old title. I should like to ask if the Government have further considered that matter.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Bill of last session simply changed the word " Northwest " in the title to the word "Canadian," the title now being " The Royal Canadian Mounted Police." As the work of the force has been extended into Eastern Canada, I am sure that members of the force in the West, as well as the people of the West, who are good and true Canadians, will be quite prepared to accept the change. The matter was carefully considered, and the approval of the executive officers of the force was secured before the change was made. Generally speaking, I have found that it has met with a great deal of public approval, although I am ready to admit that a few representations have been made to retain the old title.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I should like to have some information in regard to the ticket-of-leave question referred to in the first section of the Bill. Is any material change contem-

plated in the procedure with regard to people who obtain ticket-of-leave? We know that Mr, Justice Archibald, as an officer of the Department of Justice, had to do with obtaining tickets-of-leave for certain prisoners throughout Canada, in whose welfare he has shown a very deep interest in seeing that they observe the regulations, secure proper employment and become as far as possible good citizens. I rather fear that this paternal care which Mr. Justice Archibald has exercised will not be continued under the new regime with an official who cannot possibly be as familiar with this system as is Mr. Justice Archibald, who was practically the originator of it. I should greatly like to be satisfied that this system will not deteriorate in any way, and that the service rendered to men who are unfortunate enough to be sent to the penitentiary will not cease by reason of the change.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am pleased to be able to assure the hon. member that no change is contemplated in the method of administering the law. The change here proposed is simply to vest in the Chief Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police the duties which have hitherto been vested in the Commissioner of Dominion Police.
Bill as amended, reported and concurred in.



THE CURRENCY ACT, 1910.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend The Currency Act, 1910, by providing (a) that the standard for gold coins shall be the same as at present, that is to say, that of one thousand parts by weight nine hundred shall be of fine gold and one hundred of alloy; (b) that the standard for silver coins shall be such that of one thousand parts by weight eight hundred shall be of fine silver and two hundred of alloy; (c) that provision be made for the standard weight, fineness and remedy allowance of silver coins ; and (d) that silver coins heretofore struck by authority of the Crown or by order of the Governor in Council shall continue to be current and a legal tender.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: The object of this resolution and of the proposed legislation is simply to prevent the coinage of Canadian silver being accompanied by a loss, and to a small degree to restore the position of the Mint, in regard to coinage, to what it was under former values. During last year there was a very extraordinary increase in the price of silver. Silver ran from 80 cents an ounce up to as high as $1.41 an ounce, and silver at 80 cents was comparatively high compared to what it could be bought for at
the time Canada started silver coinage. Under the Act, our coinage has a fineness of 925; that is, out of the thousand points 925 are pure silver and 75 alloy. When- Canada first started her coinage operations, with a coinage of that fineness there was a resultant profit to the Mint of seventy-seven cents, plus a decimal which I have forgotten. As a result of the tremendous increase in silver values which occurred last year, that profit of seventy-seven cents would not only have disappeared but we would have been coining silver actually at a loss of 4.7 cents per ounce.
The matter is an important one. The coinage operations have become very large. The Mint has a very heavy duty now thrown upon it and is turning out an immense amount of coinage. The original expectations of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) when he, as father of the Mint commenced operations, have been far surpassed. With a view to giving the House an idea of the seriousness of coining silver at a loss, or indeed at an approximate loss, I will give the figures for 1914, which may be taken as representative, or fairly characteristic, of the coinage operations. For silver alone they amounted to $734,000 in 1914, while last year the demands for silver coinage were such that the duty was thrown on the Mint of turning out new silver coinage to the amount of $3,258,000. Of course, in so far as the silver content of the coin is concerned, as the House well knows, that is an entirely arbitrary matter. It is a matter which turns not upon the value of the coin as such, but rather upon the question as to what will make a good coin. Different countries have different .standards of fineness. Our standard has been 925, the standard of Great Britain 925, and the United States 900, while that of the Scandinavian countries-which we now propose to adopt-the Straits Settlements and some other countries, is 800. Today legislation is even advanced in Great Britain-I forget whether it is actually through the House or not-to reduce the fineness of the British silver coin to 500.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think that there is any question but that the minister is adopting a wise policy in this matter. As to the question of profit or loss, in bygone years there was only one side to it-we always made a profit from the coining of silver. Now we have reached the stage when, as the minister points out, owing to the advance in the price of silver, it is an absolute loss to us. I do not suppose that any object would be gained by continuing on , that line. I am glad to learn from my

hon. friend that not only in respect to the coinage business, but in other respects, the Mint has proved a very valuable adjunct to the Department of Finance during the period of the war. I entirely agree with the action he is taking in practically reducing the quantity of silver, so that if we do not make a profit we may at least guard against a loss. Did I understand my hon. friend to say what profit he hoped to make?
'hr HENRY DRAYTON: We hope to get a profit of 17.3 cents.	*


William Stevens Fielding: In bygone years the
profit was so large that sometimes it was a question as to whether we would be justified in treating silver as specie on a gold valuation. However the volume at that time was not very large. Occasionally reference has been made to the use of nickel in coinage. There is something to be said in favour of a nickel coinage in Canada purely from reasons of national pride. Canada is the largest nickel-producing country in the world, and it seems strange that when we have this valuable mineral at our doors we should not use it. I do not say that in the way of fault finding, but rather as a matter of inquiry. Our five-cent piece is rather too small a coin to be useful. One can lose it very easily, and it is not easy to handle. I have no urgent view to express, but I would suggest for the minister's consideration that we might utilize nickel for making the five-cent coin at all events. I entirely agree with the view that hon. gentleman has taken with reference to this measure.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I very much agree
with the remark of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I had thought of making the remark myself, as it is desirable that nickel should be introduced immediately into the coinage of Canada for the reasons specified by the hon. gentleman. We have about 85 per cent of the world's supply of nickel and its use in coinage would be a good advertisement in itself. A niekel coin would be very much easier to handle than the very small five-cent piece that we have. It is hard to keep track of that coin-though, for that matter, it is hard to keep track of any money these days. Nickel is a metal that is very substantial. I hope the minister will at an early date consider the suggestion that has been made. It may not perhaps be introduced into this resolution, but it should be introduced in the near future because it seems to me to be a most desirable thing. The minister did not state that we have

been bothered with the reduction of coinage by reason of the fact that it is being absorbed by foreign- nations, but I imagine that a great deal of it ,has been shipped to other countries and melted down into bullion. I have seen it stated in the newspapers that when it is reduced into bullion it is worth more than the face value of the coin. If that is the case I cannot understand why we should consent to being robbed of our silver on that basis. Another explanation is that silver is worth three times what it was before the war. It was worth from 40 to 43 cents an ounce in 1914, while to-day it is worth about $1.40. Although it has over three times the value that it had a few years ago we have been putting practically the same amount of silver into the coin that we did originally. That means a loss. I do not know what the relative value as between gold and silver is. We always used to hear about the relative value of 16 to 1. The minister might tell us what the ratio would be as between silver and gold. Is it 13 or 14 to 1? I have very great pleasure in supporting what the minister proposes to do. I think it should have been done earlier.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before the minister replies to the hon. member for Brantford (Mt. Cockshutt), I have a suggestion to make that he can reply to at the same time. The minister said that the United States had a certain standard of fineness for silver coinage, that Great Britain had another, and that we propose to adopt the standard of the Scandinavian countries. Would it not be advisable for the different civilized countries to get together and have a common standard of fineness for silver coin? If I mistake not, the fineness of gold coins is pretty nearly the same. I think that the amount of gold in the 20 franc piece is about the same as the amount in the sovereign. I would like to hear the minister express his view as to the wisdom and practicability of having the different nations get together and establsh their silver coinage on the same basis of fineness.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In answer to my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) as to the silver and gold ratio, he would be a very able man, but I do not think he would be an accurate man, who would say what the ratio of silver to gold was at the present time. It is a matter that is fluctuating constantly. Gold is about the only thing that is standing still. We know its value even if it is not standing still. But silver is something that is constantly

moving. We have no fixed ratio of value in this country as between gold and silver. The basis of Canada's currency is-or was-the gold basis. There is the same basis back of Canada's currency as there is back of that of any country to-day in the world, and that is the country's credit; because, as a matter of fact, there is no country that is to-day really upon a gold basis. Silver, so far as we are concerned, is merely token money.. As token money the question of ratios really does not come up at all. Silver does not pass as currency in value because *the coin is worth thus and so. In Canada it is merely a token of value which is adopted. In China where they are on a silver basis, their coin is of value having regard to its fineness and the amount of silver in it; but with us, as with Great Britain and with the United States, silver is merely token currency. At one time when my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) was looking after the minting of Canadian coinage he was making profit on his silver coinage of two and one half times the value of the silver that went into it. It is quite clear therefore that that coinage was token money.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is it token money today?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think it is
absolutely token money to-day.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There is the value of
the silver in the coin.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is as silver, but as coin it is still token money. We may regard the token as too expensive, but the underlying measure of value was never the silver in the token; and the merely accidental fact that to-day silver has became more expensive than it was could not very well make a difference in the nature of the currency. As it is merely token money I do not think that very much is to be gain d by having a standaid value for silver coinage. It may be a nice thing to retain as token coinage hut I do not think it is a matter of any great importance. Of course my hon. friend is absolutely right in connection with gold. Its value is on such a basis of currency everywhere that the question of standard fineness is a very important one.
I am very glad my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) has made the suggestion in reference to nickel coinage. We have now a company in Canada that is going to refine nickel in this country, and very shortly after I knew it I brought up with that com-26
pany the question of a supply of proper nickel blanks of Canadian nickel, refined and supplied by a Canadian nickel refinery, for the purpose of a nickel coinage. The matter is not quite far enough advanced to be able to say exactly when we will be in a position to get those nickel blanks and to submit a considered proposal to the House. If it is at all possible it will be submitted at this session.


Mr. PROULX:: Does this change affect
the face value of our silver currency in the United States?


Henry Lumley Drayton: It cannot very well do th%t except for one purpose. Our currency in the United States is handled in the ordinary way by bankers or' by the express .companies; they are shipping that coinage back into Canada. They are taking the silver mainly at a discount of fifteen per cent, allowing a value in American curreney of eightynAve cents for our dollar in silver, but it is expressed back. As to the difficulty, which it is suggested is taking place, that is the difficulty resulting from the melting down of our coinage into silver, the hon. gentleman will see that for currency purposes it is not a national interest that the value should be considered for melting purposes of token coin. On the basis which is now proposed of 800 fineness it would no longer avail one in Canada or the United States to take our silver and melt it down. That is one of the reasons why it was necessary, apart from the question of cost, to reduce the fineness of our silver coinage. The value, therefore, of the silver coinage, having in view the question of melting it and returning it to bullion, is decreased. The hon. gentleman says it is a pity it was not done before. Well, it has been done and it is being done; we will not go on losing money. I think it was the last expiring governmental action taken under the much abused War Measures Act which enabled us to stop losing money on our silver coin.


William Stevens Fielding: On the question of
token coinage it is worth while remembering that in principle there is no difference between bronze and silver. Our -bronze coinage and our silver coinage are alike in that respect-they never professed to be based on intrinsic value. As the hon. gehtleman (Mr. McMaster) has pointed out our silver coinage is better than tokens inasmuch as it is now worth more than an equal amount of silver. That however, arises only from a temporary condition.



Some years ago a great deal of American silver was circulated in Canada and there were many reasons why that was not very desirable. One reason was that these American coins were displacing our own silver on which we made a profit. Steps were taken to collect that silver through the banks and ship it away. The result was that for some years we have had little or no American silver in Canada. I think that is quite important. There is not the same inducement to-day for shipping it away, hut I would ask my hon. friend whether the banks still continue to export American silver under the arrangement with the Finance Department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We stopped paying the banks anything for that about eighteen months ago in view of the shortness of our own silver. When we return to normal conditions the former practice will again be adopted.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Under the Gresham law poorer money always drives out the better, and almost as a matter of economics the American importations have been leaving Canada and finding their way over to the United States.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I would like to ask another question with respect to the new one-cent pieces which were provided for in a measure passed last year and which were to be much smaller in size than those now in circulation. I know the minister does not deal very much with these coins, but to me, and to a good many of my colleagues this coinage is a matter of some importance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Possibly my pocket has been worn out by the large Canadian cent just as much as the pocket of my hon. friend. It is a coin I am very familiar with bearing in mind what the salaries of Cabinet Ministers are. However, the character of the coin is settled. The orders were given a long time ago for the necessary dies from Great Britain, but they are not here yet. We are doing the best we can to get them, and as soon as they reach here I do not think more than forty-eight hours will elapse before we will be turning out those one-cent pieces.
Resolution reported.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce BBl No. 15, to amend the Currency Act, IbiO.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Georges Henri Boivin: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate requesting this House to unite with the Senate in the appointment of a Joint Committee consisting of an equal number of members of both Houses to consider and report upon the desirability of uniting certain branches of the two Houses performing similar duties and particularly the Law Branch, the Law Translation Branch, and the Debates Translation Branch, and, if in the opinion of the committee, it is desirable to unite any of the branches, to submit a scheme therefor, and that the Honourable Messieurs Bel-eourt, Dandurand, Dennis, Foster, Fowler, Sharpe and Thompson be appointed as members of such committee to act on behalf of the Senate. .



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That tt is expedient to amend the Government Annuities Act, 1908, and to provide (a) for the sale of annuities to any person resident in Canada; (b) for the increase of the total amount which may be paid by way of an annuity or annuities to an annuitant or to joint annuitants from $1,000 to $5,000 a year; and (c) for the increase of the rate of interest from three to four per cent per annum payable on moneys repaid to the purchaser or his legal representatives when the annuitant or the last survivor of joint annuitants dies before the annuity becomes payable and moneys have been paid or deposited as consideration for the annuity.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, the object of this resolution and the legislation to be based upon it is to make Government annuities more popular than they are at present, to stimulate public interest in them, and to raise larger sums of money than have been raised in the past under the Government Annuities Act. The changes proposed are not very great, but they are considered necessary by the department having the matter in charge in order to make possible a greater sale of the annuities, in the interest not only of the country but also of those who purchase them.
The first change is to provide that annuities may be sold to any person resident in Canada. The department desires to be in a position to sell annuities to any one in Canada; they do not want to be confined to selling them only to persons who can

prove domicile in this country. That is merely in the direction of removing a barrier which has stood in the way of selling these annuities.
The original intention in connection with the sale of annuities by the Government was to provide for an income to the annuitant of comparatively small amount. Of course, the first idea of the annuity was that it was entirely for the benefit of the annuitant, not of the country. That idea has long since been exploded, at any rate in so far as matters on this side of the Atlantic are concerned. The large insurance companies have gone very extensively into the business of selling annuities and in this connection are making very large sums of money. The sale of annuities ought to be a good thing for the Government; it is a transaction in connection with which the country ought to receive a large amount of money. If it pays ordinary commercial companies to sell annuities, it ought to pay, and I have no doubt will pay the country to sell them. Now, the total amount payable yearly by way of annuity has-been $1,000; the department have requested that the amount be increased to $5,000 so that they may be enabled to do business with individual or joint annuitants to the extent of that amount.
Then there is the matter of the age at which annuities may be drawn. Under the present law no one can obtain payments under an annuity until he has become fifty-five years of age. That again limits the field in which annuities may be sold; and there would seem to be no reason for the restriction. The insurance companies do not impose any such restriction; they charge more, just as the Government would charge more for annuities payable a* an earlier age. The profit obtained in connection with the sale of annuities which become payable at forty or forty-five when the charge is based upon a proper table of rates is just as good as that obtained in connection with the sale of annuities payable at fifty-five. The department, therefore, ask that that barrier also be removed.
The fourth matter covered by the resolution, that of providing for an increase of the rate of interest from three to four per cent per annum payable on moneys repaid to the purchaser or his legal representatives when the annuitant dies before the annuity becomes payable, is an important one. There are different kinds of annuities. There are guaranteed annuities, in connection with which a certain number of annual 26J
payments are payable after the annuity becomes payable whether the annuitant is alive or not. Then you have an annuity issued at a much lower rate under which the annuitant, if he dies before the date on which the annuity becomes payable, loses everything he has paid. Then you have an intermediate class which falls short of the guaranteed payment of annuities but which is entitled to a return of moneys paid with interest at three per cent. This intermediate class offers a two-fold inducement: It encourages savings and it guarantees their return with interest in case the annuitant dies before he attains the age at which the annuity is to commence. Now, at the time this rate of three per cent was fixed, money was a great deal cheaper than it is now, and the department says that in order to make effective any argument regarding the benefit of annuities from the standpoint of savings the interest rate should be four instead of three per cent.


Edmond Proulx: Would this apply to annuities that have been issued already?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, this would not necessarily apply to any existing contract. All annuities turn upon contract.


William Stevens Fielding: The objects of those who devised the original annuity scheme are not quite the same as those of the Minister of Finance, The original scheme was devised for the benefit of the annuitants, whereas my hon. friend is devising a scheme for the benefit and convenience of the Government. He wants to draw more money into the public treasury, and I suppose no objection can be taken to that, because he needs it badly This Bill is designed, not for the benefit of the annuitant, but to get more money into the public treasury. It was never intended that this should be a scheme to compete with insurance companies. Inasmuch as it was a privilege that was granted, it was not considered necessary to give it to everybody. But I do not think any harm can come from extending it as my hon. friend suggests. Then it was intended that the annuitant should receive a moderate sum; I do not think it was intended that he should get $5,000; I think the original sum was $600-at all events, the sum was a small one. The scheme was never intended as one to compete with insurance companies, but to meet the case of many simple people who did not understand insurance, who had great faith in the Government and who would take up a Govern-

ment scheme when they might not take up an insurance scheme. Theiefore, it was not intended to be a scheme to pay large annuities. My hon. friend is now going into competition with insurance companies. I do not know that any great harm can come from that, but it is quite evident that his viewpoint is not quite the same as that of the former minister who devised the scheme. No exception can be taken to the increase in interest in a given case. Money is worth more than in former times. Out of that, however, a suggestion arises, that I perhaps do not want to press too strongly. It seems. to me that the argument that is used in favour of an increased rate of interest might also apply to an increased rate of interest on savings bank deposits. The rate of interest on savings bank deposits ought not, I grant, to be changed frequently. If you increase it, you cannot very easily take it down; and. if there were a temporary hardness of the money market which would seem to make money dearer, I should not think that would be a reason why the interest on savings bank deposits should be increased. But where you have a continued condition running for years with a high interest value for money, I think the question of the rate of interest in the savings bank presents itself in a stronger light than in former times. I remember one occasion when a strong argument was put up to increase the rate of interest in the savings bank. I did not concur in the suggestion; but as a compromise I said this: We will create a Government stock of 31 per cent, and if the people who have money in the savings bank attach sufficient importance to getting the higher rate, they can convert their savings bank deposits into 3i per cent stock. I did not expect that very many would do that, and as a matter of fact very few did it. People who put money in the savings bank are of a class that does not understand finance; the question of rate of interest is not a very serious matter to them; what they want to know is that the money is there; that the Government is behind it, and they can get their money when they want it. I do not know, if my hon. friend were to* increase the rate of interest on savings bank deposits, whether he would get much thanks for doing so. In the face of present conditions, however, where you have had a long period of years during which money has been getting dearer, and it is probably going to be dearer next year than this year, the minister might consider ]Mr. Fielding. [
whether he would not be justified in increasing the savings bank rate.
There is another point. My hon. friend has intimated that the Government want to make this annuity system more popular. I do not know whether he has at hand any evidence to show to what extent people have taken advantage of this annuity scheme, but I think he is quite correct in implying that it is not very popular. I do not wish to introduce a note of complaint regarding his predecessor, but what happened was this. When this annuity scheme was devised, it was realized by its promoters that it was like insurance; that it was a good thing, but that people do not usually take out insurance until somebody goes to them and explains the matter-canvasses them. I suppose nearly three out of four members of this House will confess that their first insurance policies were taken out, not because they had the economic law in mind, but because some clever agent came and put the proposition before them. So we realized that if we expected to make this annuity scheme a success, we would have to do something to advertise it; that we would have to send men into the field to explain it, and we accordingly appointed a number of lecturers-I think they were called, agents,-canvassers to do that service. In the year 1911 a remarkable event happened


Andrew Ross McMaster: A sad event.


William Stevens Fielding: -and a change of Government occurred. The Government that came into power decided that those lecturers were not necessary; that they were not any good, and the Government quietly dispensed with their services. Of course, it so happened that those lecturers had been appointed by a Liberal Government, and, perhaps, it would be wrong to suggest that that had anything to do with their services being dispensed with, but still the fact remains that the services of those lecturers, who were to be the canvassers to make this scheme successful, were dispensed with. We were told that the Government were going to substitute for that a better system; that they were going to make the postmasters of the country agents; that the postmasters were to give all the information. Soon after that information had been given out in the public press, I was in a large important town, a shire town down East-I shall not mention the name. I went to the postmaster, and I said:	"I
want information about the annuity scheme." He said:	"What"? I said:
"The annuity scheme." He said: "What

annuity scheme "? Well, I gave him a little outline of what it was, and I said that it had been announced by the Government in the public press and otherwise that this scheme was to be carried out by the postmasters, and I said: " I suppose you have some instructions in regard to the matter." He said: "I suppose I have." He agreed to look for instructions, and a day or two afterwards when I asked him about them, he said that he supposed they had come, but he could not find them. It is not surprising under those conditions that the annuity scheme proved a failure. I do not know what method my hon. friend has in mind of putting the information before the public; but I would strongly advise him, even at the risk of not having Liberal appointees, to adopt the principle of the insurance companies and to send somebody amongst the people to explain the whole scheme to them, and then he will not have to come before the House and say that the scheme is a failure.


Mr. M. CLARK:: The conversation to
which we have just listened as well as we could at this end of the room is very interesting to me as illustrating how careful Governments should be in taking up business that on the whole would be just as well-or in nine cases out of ten better- done by private individuals. I notice the original Act dates back from the year 1908, and I am pretty sure that if I had been in the House then I would have protested against the original Act, although I would have been a very young member, on the ground that it is not desirable on general grounds that the Government of a great country like this should undertake business which is being done by private individuals. I think that general ground is a sound ground. This is just another example of that system of paternalism which is proving such an attraction to the comparatively limited population of a country like Canada. The worse fault that is taking hold of people to-day, so far as I can see, is that everybody wants to be governing his neighbour; people have a passion for looking after other people, and by means of the Government. I endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. - Fielding) as to the original intention of this Act, and I must say that I listened almost aghast to the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) in so far as those remarks showed that, with a lightness of heart, he was prepared to embark upon a scheme of money-making on behalf of this Government, in the conduct of a business which, I repeat, is properly the business of insurance societies.
Where are we going to end if these ideas of the functions of a Government are to prevail on both sides and in all corners of this House? We shall end in the buildnig up ' of a top-heavy bureaucracy, that is where we shall end. Men of all political persuasions are telling our people that what this country needs at the present time is production, and any one who knows Canada knows that there is an ample field for the activities of individuals in almost any line of human endeavour. There is an ample field for individualistic enterprise, and that is what the country wants-individual effort, for their own sakes in the first place, and to the certain advantage of the country in the second place. If you keep on extending the sphere of governmental action you inevitably keep on increasing the number of your civil servants. We are told we have far too many already, and that we ought to economize by carefully reducing their numbers, and certainly by being most careful in making new appointments. I think that is so, but if every second man you meet from the Atlantic to the Pacific is seeking for a Government job, without any regard to the preaching of annuities or anything else, how are you going to increase your production? I want just in a sentence or two to warn my hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) against letting this idea of Government go too far with him. I am charmed with his first appearances in this House. His powers of exposition are great, but his political experience is brief, and I hope he will consult very frequently the Acting Prime Minister before he gives out such novel, radical, and I had almost said, Bolshevist doctrines. I suppose if we had a Soviet form of Government, everything would be in the hands of the Government, but I do think on the whole that annuities would be better handled by insurance companies than by any government that I can conceive of or have seen in Canada hitherto.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I can assure my hon. friend that I am very, very open to instruction in politics in every direction. I know I can get a lot of information from my hon. friend, and I hope he will be kind enough to give it to me from time to time. But with reference to this particular matter I really had the idea that Government annuities were supposed to be a good thing, and1 that they were not at all novel. My idea, I think, is not very far from the truth. Certainly I do not desire to have an army of

men trying to sell Government annuities. My opinion is that the Government annuity business should be either stopped entirely or put upon such a basis as will recommend itself to the people whom we are asking to invest in them. Every one will agree that thd original idea of Government annuities was to help the people who bought them. But {hey do not help if the terms are such that it does not pay any one to take them out. Annuities were surely never intended to be issued upon a basis that would give the Government an infinitely greater return that it had a right to get. They were established for the purpose of encouraging and helping people to save. Of course, we need production in this country, but we also need saving, and probably need it almost as much as production. Production and saving ought to go side-by side, but you are not going to help saving by offering only 3 per cent. We may, and I hope we will, get people to save by making the changes I have suggested.
Resolution reported.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend the Government Annuities Act, 1908.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), for the House to go into Committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to repeal sections eighty-five to eighty-nine, both inclusive, and section ninety-one of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter one hundred and thirteen of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to reenact in lieu thereof:
[Stage Direction]
1.	That every British subject who,-
(a)	served as a master or mate of a seagoing or coasting sailing vessel of over seventy-five tons, gross tonnage, before the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty, for a full period of twelve months within ten years immediately next preceding the date of his application for certificate of service,
(b)	produces satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, ability and general good conduct on board ship, and
(c)	passes the sight test and the prescribed examination in signalling, shall be entitled, on payment of the prescribed fee, to a certificate of service as a master or mate of a square rigged or fore-and-aft rigged sea-going or coasting sailing vessel not exceeding seven hundred and fifty tons, registered tonnage, according as his service has been (a) as master or as mate, (b) on a sea-going or on a coasting sailing vessel, (c) on a square rigged sailing ship or on a fore-and-aft rigged sailing vessel.
[Sit Henry Drayton.]
2.	That in every such certificate of service the name, place and date of birth of the person to whom the same is issued shall be stated, and each certificate shall specify whether the holder is entitled to act as master or mate, whether the certificate is for seagoing vessels or for vessels in the coasting trade, and whether for square rigged sailing vessels or for fore-and-aft sailing vessels, and that it is not for any vessel exceeding seven hundred and fifty tons, registered tonnage.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I presume that this is the proper time to discuss the principle of this resolution. Legislation very much akin to what is aimed at by this resolution was introduced in the latter part of one of the sessions last year by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), but it met with such vigorous opposition from hon. members, including myself, that the minister thought proper to withdraw the Bill. Now the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) comes forward with a resolution, not exactly word for word, but on almost precisely the same lines as the legislation introduced by the hon. member for Halifax last year. We all know that a certain standard oh education, experience and ability is required of professional men in this country. In the case of lawyers, doctors, engineers, or any other professional men,	certain	educational	requirementshave to be met, and certain experience must have been had before they are permitted to practice. I venture to say that captaincy and charge of ships has been regarded not merely as a profession in this country, but as a very honourable and very onerous profession for the last hundred years and more. The Minister of Marine and	Fisheries	now	brings	before thisParliament legislation that would do away entirely with educational requirements in the	case	of a	man whoseduty	it is to	take	charge	of a ship.
According to this resolution, if a man obtained a certificate ten years ago stating that he had served on board ship for twelve months somewhere in Canada, now, after the lapse of that time during which he may have done anything else and may have forgotten all about seamanship, he can claim a license as a captain qualified to put to sea with a crew. The sections in Chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, (Sections 85 to 89 inclusive, are very simple in their requirements and are not, I think, too exacting. If this proposed legislation were restricted to coasting vessels there would not be so much danger. But it is also contemplated to license such

men as I have mentioned to go across the ocean. What would happen to such a captain if he went to Liverpool? He might take his ship there but he would never be able to leave, because his certificate would be regarded as a taere "scrap of paper." He would have to show a certificate recognized on the other side by the Board of Trade. It is possible that the minister may have consulted the English Board of Trade and obtained their approval of this Bill. If he has not done so, I fear that the captains who may possess these unsatisfactory certificates will find themselves in difficulty in the Old Country. We know of instances in which engineeis have gone from Canada to the Old Country with certificates that were good enough here but were rejected on the other side, and in this predicament competent engineers had to be secuied to clear the ships from the ports in England. I earnestly submit that in order to take charge of an ocean vessel a man must have adequate knowledge of seafaring and be able to ascertain his position by the use of the proper instruments. So far as I am concerned, I desire it to be distinctly understood that I repudiate any responsibility that might accrue by the enacting of such legislation as this, for I think it is a most dangerous thing to put life and property in the hands of incompetent captains. The insurance companies of this country, I think, would lefuse to insure ships or cargoes intended to be sent to sea under the control of men who were palpably incompetent in every sense, at least in the matter of training. The minister was not in the House when the Bill to which I have made reference was introduced. If he had been he would recall that both our own law and the English law on the subject were cited, and that after due consideration of the facts the hon. member who introduced the Bill deemed it wise to withdraw it. I am therefore surprised that within such a short time the minister should seek to establish such a low standard of seamanship in this country. In conclusion, I can only emphasize my protest and leave the responsibility entirely with the minister and those who may be disposed to implement this resolution by an Act of Parliament.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I was not present
at the special session of the House when the then acting minister introduced the Bill in question, which was not similar to, but different from this. That Bill applied to sailing vessels propelled by auxiliary
power, but this resolution does not apply to such vessels. It applies only to " sailing vessels," of a certain tonnage. Under the Shipping Act any master who served on a sailing vessel prior to 1870, if he were alive to-day, and were sober, experienced and of adequate ability and general good conduct, would be entitled to a certificate on the payment of the prescribed fee. The hon. member will at once realize that we could not expect men to be fit captains of sailing ships who had served prior to the year 1870, and this resolution seeks to repeal Section 85 of the Shipping Act, and to enact that any man who has served on a sailing vessel for twelve months within the past ten years and possesses the qualifications to which I have referred, in addition to a knowledge of signalling, shall be granted a service certificate. This is nothing new. We are merely bringing the Shipping Act up to date, and it is difficult for me to apprehend the reasoning of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) in his argument that the legislation proposed is unusual and hazardous.
I wish to say to the hon. member that the service certificate that shall be granted to an officer who desires to become a master of a sailing ship, should this resolution and the Bill that is to be based upon it pass, is a service certificate that will be recognized just th same as a competency certificate. There is absolutely no difference so far as recognition by the English authorities is concerned between the service certificate and the competency certificate.
With regard to the other clause, I wish to have section 86 of the Act repealed also because a mate cannot obtain a service certificate without going back as far as 1883. Surely hon. members will not object to the changes that the resolution calls for in order that both a master and a mate, instead of having to go back to 1870 for the master and 1883 for the mate, may, upon a service of ten years be capable of obtaining a service certificate. During the last few years captains and mates of sailing vessels have become very scarce; in fact; they were so difficult to get that during the war I had to take the necessary authority under the War Measures Act to grant service certificates to masters and mates of sailing vessels. My object in bringing forward this resolution now is to meet the absolute necessity that exists for more masters and mates by enabling them to get service certificates for sailing ships. The Act introduced at the special session

of the House was for sailing ships driven by auxiliary power. This resolution is confined to sailing craft only. There is another section of the Shipping Act-section 87-that I desire to have repealed. It provides that a vessel shall be only 100 registered tons and not over 150. The resolution stipulates that the tonnage may be increased to 750 tons. My hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) comes from a maritime province, and I am sure that he appreciates better than I do the fact that those experienced men who have been on sailing ships for a number of years, while they may not be able, owing to Jack of education to pass the competency test and therefore obtain competency certificates, are just as good men and just as competent, providing that their eyesight is all right and that they understand signalling, as others who may be better equipped as far as education goes. But we cannot put men on sailing vessels who are seventy years of age. I therefore wish to repeal the clause so as to provide that masters and mates who have served, within the past ten years, for twelve months on board a sailing ship may be granted a certificate providing they have the qualifications that I have referred to.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: If it is agreeable to the House I would move that we adjourn at six o'clock, but I would like, before we do that, to take Private Bills so as to get them one stage farther ahead.
On the motion of Mr. Duff the debate was adjourned.



SECOND READINGS-PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 4, to incorporate Armor Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Griesbach.
Bill No. 5, respecting The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Crowe.
Bill No. 6, respecting the Canadian Mining Institute, and to change its name to The Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 7, to incorporate The T. Eaton General Insurance Company.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 8, to incorporate The T. Eaton Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 9, to incorporate Scottish Canadian Assurance Corporation.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 10, respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Cronyn.
On the motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Monday, March 15, 1920.